Does a conflict arise just because a lawyer represents two clients, a county college and its depository bank, that have a continuing relationship with each other?

Short answer No. The Committee found no conflict in representing two clients who have a continuing relationship where the lawyer takes no part for either client in that relationship.

Bar

NJACPE

Issued

July 30, 1987

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1987. Ask about yours and see what the current New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

How much weight this carries: The Supreme Court of New Jersey has held that the Advisory Committee's published opinions are binding on the ethics committees that decide grievances (R. 1:19-6), and that a lawyer who does not follow one "does so at his peril" (Higgins v. Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, 73 N.J. 123 (1977)). The Court can modify or vacate an opinion. Source.

About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The inquirer was the designated attorney for a county college. He was also a director of a bank and counsel to that bank in certain matters not involving customer-related work. The bank was one of two depositories of the county college's funds. The inquirer had divorced himself from any involvement in the relationship between the bank and the college, and depositories were selected through a competitive bidding process. He asked whether a conflict existed merely because he represented two clients with a continuing relationship in which he did not participate for either client.

The Committee found no conflict. It stated that no conflict exists simply because an attorney represents two clients who have a continuing relationship.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987, before New Jersey's adoption of the 2004 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, which abolished the "appearance of impropriety" standard underlying conflict opinions of this era. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Is there a conflict just because a lawyer's two clients deal with each other?

A: Per the opinion, no. The Committee found no conflict where the lawyer represents two clients with a continuing relationship and takes no part for either in that relationship.

Q: What facts mattered to the Committee?

A: The opinion noted that the inquirer had divorced himself from any involvement in the bank-college relationship and that depositories were chosen through a bidding process.

Background and rules framework

The opinion addresses concurrent representation of two clients whose dealings with each other are continuing but in which the lawyer plays no role for either side. The Committee resolved it without invoking a numbered Rule of Professional Conduct, treating the bare fact of a relationship between two clients as insufficient, by itself, to create a conflict.

Citations and references

The opinion cites no statutes, cases, or prior opinions.

Source

Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp601-1.html
Issuing authority: New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, via the NJ Courts Supreme Court Committees page

Original opinion text

Reproduced from a full-text mirror of the official opinion for research purposes. The linked official source controls.

120 N.J.L.J. 251, July 30, 1987

OPINION 601

Conflict of Interest: Counsel to County College Serving as Counsel and Board Member to Bank in which College's Funds are Deposited

The inquirer here is designated attorney for a county college. He is also a member of the board of directors of a bank and counsel to the bank in certain matters, not including customer related matters. The bank is one of two depositories of funds of the county college. The facts set out indicate that inquirer has assiduously divorced himself on both sides from being involved in any relationship between the bank and the college. Further, depositories are chosen based upon a bidding process whereby the highest bidders are chosen to be depositories. The issue posed in the inquiry is:

Does a conflict of interest exist merely because an attorney represents two clients that have a continuing relationship with each other, but in which the attorney does not participate for either client in that relationship?

It is clear that no conflict exists by the simple reason that an attorney represents two clients who have a continuing relationship.

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1987. Ezel checks the current New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
Chat, drafting and research in one workspace